If the capture of Saddam didn't send you into transports of unalloyed ecstasy, you're probably a terrorist, a pinko...maybe even a Democrat... But one thing's for sure: you aren't patriotically correct.
Patriotically Incorrect Degrees of Happiness…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Joe
Ok, one quick question, the winning answer will receive an all expense paid visit to a luxurious spider hole at an undisclosed location: Given the obvious deceit, perfidy, and malfeasance attributed to the administration, why haven't they already planted the evidence of WMDs, 9-11 duplicity, and al Qaeda linkages?
27 - Eric Olsen
Winston, you're right about the oxygen and WMD, since we don't know they aren't there. All indications are that they had them, were developing them, were trying to obtain them. It's a big country, they could be hidden anywhere in Iraq, could be out of the country, could be up Saddam's ass - who says they aren't there?
Regarding the definitions: making a statement of fact based upon evidence at hand that would lead a reasonable person to make that conclusion, and then finding out that the statement was in fact incorrect - which has not been determined here - is not lying, it's being wrong. If one does not attempt to deceive, then one does not lie.
28 - Winston Smith
Dang, I gotta get outta here!
But:
Joe is right. ONE of the issues here is about intent. And--can't believe I didn't see this before--Deb's definition is defective on other grounds--and actually helps me and Hal, though illicitly. Oh, this is interesting. Check it out:
Deb's definition:
Lie:
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Now, it's a little weird, b/c this is actually three different definitions:
1. a false statement deliberately presented as being true
2. a falsehood
3. Something meant to deceive or give the wrong impression
Suppose 1 were correct. That would mean that any time anyone said anything false thinking that it was true, that would be a lie. (since that would be a falsehood deliberately (tho honestly!) presented as being true. If that definition is correct, then W lied, I'm right, Deb's wrong. But that's an absurd definition, so it doesn't count.
Suppose 2 were correct: then, again, ANY falsehood is a lie, even one uttered sincerely, with every intention of telling the truth. Again, W lied no matter what his intentions. But absurd consequence ergo bad definition ergo we can't use it.
Now 3 is a good definition of lie. I said the whole shebang was wrong. I was wrong about that. 3 is right. It says:
Something meant to deceive or give the wrong impression
The 'meant' part gets Joe's intent stuff in there, and that's what matters. But, see, it's the intention to decieve that matters, and whether you KNOW what you are saying is false, or just SUSPECT that it is, or haven't any Earthly idea whether it's right or wrong, it's a lie according to that part of the definition.
But then, if W knew about the intelligence that Cheney et. al. knew about, then he lied, since in that case he knew that the evidence indicated that OBL was not connected with SH.
So, unless you think that W was kept in the dark by the rest of the administration--which I acknowledge as possible but believe unlikely--he lied.
QED.
Thanks again, Joe, for keeping me in line--tho I expect you might disagree with this conclusion.
WS
p.s. one final complication: I've treated the definition as disjunctive. If it's supposed to be conjunctive, then that'll change things, but I'd have to think about it to figure out how...but I gotta go!
29 - Winston Smith
Joe:
They didn't plant evidence because they aren't evil. That's a whole different order of deception, and I simply cannot believe they'd go that far. Plus it's easier to get caught. Who'd do it? I don't think our boys would do it.
Eric:
Well, the hard fact is that the evidence was fuzzy and confusing, but the experts at the CIA concluded that it pointed pretty clearly to the conclusion that there was no OBL/SH link. W knew this and said the reverse, ergo he lied. Nobody is going to get urinated off at him about an honest mistake, least of all me.
WS, outta here
30 - debbie
How can you say it was MEANT to DECEIVE if it may have been correct.
That is the problem.
If you truly don't know the outcome, how can you "LIE" about it.
You have to have intent - "meant to deceive".
If you can't prove the intent (this is done by proving that he knew the truth) then you can't prove the LIE.
31 - debbie
This is sad....
If you want to see conspiracies everywhere there isn't anything left to be said.
You aren't any better than the fringe "Clinton killed Vince Foster" crowd.
32 - Al Barger
Winston et al, I asked a critical question back in comment #3, and I got no answer. Let's try again:
Hussein had WMDs (or certainly so everyone thought), he openly bankrolled Palestenian terrorists (who killed some Americans among others), he provided sanctuary to terrorists, provided them training camps, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.
Oh, and he killed a million plus people.
But that's not why we REALLY went to Iraq.
Alright, then, what was Bush's REAL SUPER SECRET reason for going to Iraq that isn't what it obviously looks like on the face?
WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR WHY BUSH LED US INTO THIS WAR? If it's not all these big obvious reasons, then what is it that he was REALLY REALLY thinking?
33 - Mark Saleski
uh...chicks 'll dig it?
34 - Eric Olsen
When did Bush ever say there was a direct connection between the two belles of the ball anyway? I thought we were talking about WMD. I know he specifically said there WASN'T a direct connection anytime I heard him.
35 - debbie
Eric,
That's exactly what I meant when I said that when I listened to Bush's speeches and then read about them in the new the next day, they never meshed! The news would interject what they thought he meant to say and it was never said.
There were time that I wondered if I had heard the same speech.
36 - Winston Smith
This is my absolutely last post.
I say that Al has asked exactly the right question
(I've actually discussed this on my humble blog)
WHY? We have overwhelming evidence that the evidence available to W did not justify war. So why?
It really is the $64k question.
Beware of oversimplifying tho. My assessment, FWIW:
1. Some people in the admin. had a strong antecdent non-WMD-related reasons for invading Iraq. E.g. Wolfy. Some of those reasons ARE moral ones, but some are strategic: they want a secure oil supply and to democratize the ME--in part perhaps for moral reasons, but, again, mostly for strategic ones. THese are the PW, Richard Perle, Project for a New American Century types.
2. Recent Newsweek asks a similar question, and answers it this: Cheney did it. Cheney, it is argued, basically over-estimates the threat posed by terrorism. He's not just lying out of the blue, but simply thinks that we should blow up anything that might conceivably someday shelter a terrorist. (Note: hyperbole for humorous effect.)
3. W has his reasons, but I say we can't figure them out with much precision. Some moral, some religious, some personal.
4. W has admitted that he gets all his info from his advisors. We knew that he didn't know very much when we elected him, and that he didn't have much curiosity in him. I said that was a disasterous situation back then, and it has turned out to be so. "But he's a leader!" people said, not a detail man. Now we have somebody not particularly smart, not knowledgeable, and not curious getting all his info through the same batch of (slightly kooky) advisors who advise him on what to do! Blueprint for disaster.
Anyway, the point here is that this is a situation that's perfect for generating distortions, exaggerations, and bizarre results.
Those are all guesses. The answer is: we dont' know.
But if you think there are only two alternatives:
1. they're pretty honest
and
2. They're completely evil and lie all the time
well...it just ain't so. What we have in this admin. is a general disrespect for the truth, and a strong general tendency to ignore facts when they are inconvenient and don't fit with preconceived political conclusions. THink about all the scientific data that's been ignored or supressed.
It's Lysenkoism, I tell ya, Lysenkoism!
This admin is just about two notches more dishonest than normal. But that's all it takes. They aren't sitting around rubbing their hands together saying "Bwahahahaha! Now for the laser base on the moon!" (wait...there are those plans to go back to the moon...)
One last thing:
In the military, they talk about "incestuous amplification." It's what happens when you are set on one conclusion, decide that everybody who disagrees is stupid or dishonest, and elect to listen only to like-minded people. Sound familiar? No, I'm not talking about the blogosphere, I'm talking about the Bush admin, dammit!
It's the *amplification* part that interests me most. Start with a little dishonesty, add a national tragedy and a looming threat, allow to cook for 1 year.
Voila!
Needless to say, I could be wrong about everything, and am certainly wrong about lots of this.
WS
really outta here this time
Thanks all for interesting discussion
37 - Chris Arabia
I'd say the most dangerous place to be here at BC is between this Winston Smith gentleman and the perceived advantages of having the last word.
38 - Eric Olsen
Alas, his leave from Orwell is over.
39 - JR
Why did the administration go to war in Iraq?
To win the next election of course. They're politicians, that's their prime directive.
I don't think anybody would argue that the "war on terror" has helped Bush in the polls. So, it's spring of 2002, you've toppled the Taliban, bin Laden is proving elusive, you've got nothing big left to shoot at, how do you "focus on the war"?
Open a new front in Iraq, of course. Saddam is a deserving target, he's in the Middle East - it's not much of a stretch.
It might even work.
40 - Dan
Debbie: nice collection of quotes. I think the liberal nature of the quoted buttressed your postition nicely. Al said it succinctly: "sometimes things are just as they seem." So I'll continue to believe Vince Fosters death was a suicide... until Hillary confesses.
41 - Al Barger
JR, you might argue against the Iraq war on a number of grounds, but saying that Bush was just doing it to help his re-election is just NUTSY. That'd be the absolute LAST reason for going. Doing stuff that will inevitably get some Americans killed and raise all kind of hell and spend a lot of money is politically extremely risky for Bush.
Now, it might break Bush's way politically. Great. He deserves it. However, it was and EXTREMELY risky move to him politically- as it has been to Tony Blair. They were both swimming upstream, going against the tide in this.
42 - JR
I wasn't arguing against the Iraq war. I never have, at least not seriously. If you think I was, you were assuming too much.
I wasn't even "saying" Bush did it to help his election chances, I was merely giving you an answer to your question. (And a very good question it was.)
Having said that, I think the suggestion can be taken seriously as a major motivation for invading Iraq. Was it the only reason? Absolutely not, Bush is no monster. There were many good reasons to overthrow Saddam, reasons without which this war wouldn't have happened. Yet there are also good reasons to overthrow several other leaders, or to balance the budget, or come up with an immigration policy, or deal with many other politically risky but pressing issues. So, "Why this war at this time?"
I'll say right now that my honest answer is: "I don't know."
43 - JR
Oops, actually I did "say" it. But I was being ironical. My follow up should clarify that.
44 - Al Barger
Thank you Winston for offering an actual answer in comment #36 to my question about Bush's "real" motivations. Even actually attempting a serious answer is more than I've gotten out of most war opponents.
Still, the operation doesn't look so bad when YOU start breaking it down. Your OWN description makes this sound not at all sinister of Bush, very contrary to the tone of your original post. When you start trying to put yourself into the POTUS' shoes, even you start to see something halfway understandable and reasonable.
For example, consider your own reason #2, the influence of Dick Cheney. He's not just lying out of the blue, but simply thinks that we should blow up anything that might conceivably someday shelter a terrorist. Oh, so that's not even an accusation of dishonesty- you just think he's a little on the paranoid side. By this measure, then all you're accusing them of is erring on the side of caution. That's not dishonest, nor does it constitute LYING.
Likewise lacking the sting of anything sinister is your reason #1, describing strategic rather than "moral" arguments. For example, you list spreading democracy in the middle east as a secret strategic (and only co-incidentally moral) aim.
Besides not being at all SINISTER as a reason for war, this push for democracy is not SECRETIVE either. It was one of the half dozen main reasons routinely recited in the speeches and interviews by administration members, congressmen, and war supporters among the general public. WMDs were a more compelling issue, but there were quite a few different reasons all together. Setting up Iraq as a democratic model for the region was frequently mentioned as a major argument for the war.
Your #3 is not anything specific against which there could possibly be any answer. There's no particular charge.
#4 just amounts to arguing that Bush got us into a mess because he's dumb. That's not really any kind of argument, other than a generalized insult. I think he's a pretty shrewd guy- not that I always agree with him. You're not making any specific charge.
Indeed, looking back through the Bush super secret real reasons in comment 36, I don't actually see even an actual accusation of dishonesty, as you seem to go on about in the main text of the post.
You're this mad at the Bush administration because they (may have) erred on the side of caution with their suspicions about WMDs, and none of the other reasons they listed count in their defense?
45 - Roland
This an interesting thread. I am probably too late though. I believe that Bush believed the WMD were real. I have a question though.
When Bush was asked about the link between Iraq and 9/11, he replied that the US ha not established this connection. Yet the Feith memo appears and suggests that the Al Quaeda and Iraq were linked. One could argue therefore that Iraq and 9/11 were linked at least indirectly. If I liked Bush, I would explain this by assuming he was referring to Hussein's complicity in the 9/11 plot. I could also say he was lying. Or I could say he made a mistake and was not aware of the memo. There is no way of making a determination based on the statement itself. Its interpretation seems to be a function of a one's personal feelings about Bush.
Also, Bush made statements referring to Iraq's links with international terrorism. These links exist. It is my understanding that the link between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda is a matter of some debate. Were the statements of Bush designed to convince people of these links? Was this a lie, a mistake, or a matter of interpretation? Again, it seems that one's belief is independent of the statements.
As the statements Bush made were imprecise, to me it seems impossible to determine anything about what he really believed with regard to this issue.
46 - Eric Olsen
Roland, I think you're exactly right on this - it's all open to interpretation, so when the anti-shrubs claim that he has lied they are overstating what they should know to be ambiguous and are therefore, ipso facto, lying their own asses off, which is why so many are walking around buttless.
47 - Hal Pawluk
Once again, Bush is shifting the rationale for the war.
In 2002, the US had to invade because Saddam had WMDs and was an in imminent threat.
After the invasion, he had "programs." That then became he could "reconstitute programs."
All BS to support a diversion that was not necessary for the security of the US. The resources would have done more for US security had they been applied to continue the "War on Terrorism."
48 - Roland
Let me be clear. Supporters of the war claimed that Hussein possessed chemical, biological, and even perhaps nuclear weapons. This does not seem to fit the facts as we know them in Iraq, although it is still possible a large weapons cache could be discovered.
I may say Bush was aware of the apparent nonexistence of these weapons and lied. Others may claim it is a mistake. In absence of any other information, it seems to me that both possibilities are equally likely. Given the fact that a lie of such magnitude could be easily discovered, I imagine that he believed in WMD. However, I could be convinced otherwise if some other evidence surfaced.
49 - Joe
I'm just glad that we'll have a degree of certainty on the issue of WMDs either way. Then again, I thought we should have invaded the first time a SAM was fired at one of our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.
50 - Roland
Joe
I agree. Iraq, so long as a US friendly government is in place, will never have WMD. Honestly though, I'm still not convinced that chemical and biological weapons are really all that effective. I recall the Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway that killed fewer people than a fair sized conventional bomb might. The anthrax attacks in the US, while mysterious, killed very few as well. The real danger in my mind is the atomic bomb. Maybe you need a delivery system to make these things work right.
I wonder though about how effective it will be to invade every country that is suspecting of researching these types of weapons, particularly nuclear weapons. I'm not sure how, but we are going to have to find a new way of dealing with threats like this. I suspect they will become more common, as possession of an atomic bomb seems to deal you into a higher stakes game, as Pakistan, India, and North Korea are aware.
51 - JR
"Then again, I thought we should have invaded the first time a SAM was fired at one of our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone."
Yep.
52 - JR
"Honestly though, I'm still not convinced that chemical and biological weapons are really all that effective. I recall the Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway that killed fewer people than a fair sized conventional bomb might. The anthrax attacks in the US, while mysterious, killed very few as well. The real danger in my mind is the atomic bomb. Maybe you need a delivery system to make these things work right."
An atomic bomb is not trivial to get right either, nor to deliver. True the former Soviet republics may have a few handy little ready-made bombs laying around, but I doubt that those are anything on the order of what was dropped on Nagasaki. Also, the ones we dropped were detonated above the cities; if they went off at street level I don't think they would have been anywhere near as destructive. And from my experience with radiation, the risk of fallout is somewhat overstated by all those old sci-fi movies. A little tip: if an A-bomb goes off in your city, leave the area (upwind), wash up and change into new clothes before you eat anything.
Don't let those previous attempts at gas and biological attacks lull you. It's probably one of those things like hijacking airliners - some plots are foiled, some aren't executed properly, then one day everything comes together. Then it's a really shitty day for a whole lot of innocent bystanders.
53 - Roland
JR
Those are interesting points. I have to believe that US intelligence is aware of the dispostion of those weapons in the former USSR.
I guess my thinking was that if Hussein, or anyone else, intended or intends to launch a campaign of terror in the US, they could easily do so with tools that are available in the US. The hijackers used only simple tools and aircraft, for example.
54 - LLBeanpole
Excellent analyses, WS & Hal! WS, the only thing that puzzles me about your initial post is why you were so vehemently set against Saddam while presumably not feeling the same level of revulsion against the likes of Mobutu, and various other odious living dictators who have caused more death and destruction. If Iraq isn't sitting on a sea of oil (didn't Wolfowitz jokingly reference that in a speech?), would Saddam have made that same impression? Right about the time Iraq was invaded, a genocidal war killing hundreds of thousands was going on in Rwanda. In terms of moral priority, why wasn't Africa more urgent?
It also seems the war supporters are happy with facile answers. here's a rebuttal for the vehement assertion by debbie that Bush didn't lie by the definition of a dictionary.
She wrote:
Lie:
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Bush lied by saying he has conclusive, solid evidence that Saddam possesses WMD, when in fact he didn't. Rumsfeld even said he knew for sure their exact location. All those "evidence" presented were in fact false, in two ways, that they are in no way conclusive, or that the evidence do not exist and are never shown to us.
By saying "trust me, I have conclusive evidence", when in fact he didn't, Bush lied to us all.
55 - LLBeanpole
If Bush had said, we have evidence from the CIA that Iraq 's WMD case is inconclusive, but we also have some testimony from Iraqi exiles that he did, and we are going with the latter's evidence to wage war on Iraq, then he would have been telling the truth, because the truth is that his administration received BOTH of those information. By knowingly misrepresenting the intelligence he received, by hiding crucial controversial evidence from the CIA, he has LIED to the nation, in a big way, in order to move quickly to war.
56 - LLBeanpole
As regard the argument that it is better that the military is fighting "terrorists" in Iraq than America, the glibe "Better Baghdad than Boston" snide logic is fallacious on several counts.
1, There has been no evidence that the Al Qaeda terrorists are fighting in Iraq. In fact, most of those captured are Iraqis, with a stray Syrian or two, who would be termed resistance fighters against an occupying force, if we really want to play the dictionary game. These Iraqis are not interested in waging unprovoked terrorist acts against Americans. They didn't after the first Gulf War, they didn't through 12 years of sanctions that killed half a million of their kids. None of the 911 guys are Iraqis.
2, By concentrating billions $$$ and hundreds of thousands of soldiers on a country that did not pose any threat to Americans, there is a lot less left to track and fight Al Qaeda, to beef up international intelligence operations against the threat of more attacks, or to increase homeland security.
3, The invasion of Iraq and its occupation without a just cause made the US more hated among Muslims, not less. This really energizes the Al Qaeda's case against the Big Satan, and will ultimately be a recruiting bonanza, not necessarily for the fighting in Baghdad, but probably closer to home.
In all, this war hasn't made anyone safer, but has increased the volatility of the world we live in.
57 - Jim
In comment 50, Roland posted
"Iraq, so long as a US friendly government is in place, will never have WMD."
Unfortunately, this is not true, as is shown by this counterexample. In the late 1970's and through the 1980's Iraq had in place a government (led by Saddam) which the US considered to be US-friendly. Not only did that US-friendly government possess WMD, it used them as well, with no more than token protest from the US.
Iraqi WMD did not become an issue for the US until after Iraq began its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait.
The issue with the invasion of Kuwait was, of course, that Iraq had invaded another nation with a US-friendly (albeit undemocratic) government. This is clearly seen by comparing our violent (and multi-lateral) response to the invasion of Kuwait to our acquiescence (and long term aid and abetment) of the earlier invasion of Iran.
58 - Al Barger
Yes, we really screwed the pooch by backing Hussein in his earlier years. Beyond anything else, this was shortsighted. THAT is the kind of thing that will legitimately earn us hatred.
I hope we've learned our lesson about backing nasty thug dictators. I don't think we'll be supporting anybody NEAR that bad anytime soon.
I sure am GLAD we got that SOB.
59 - Jim
In Comment 32 Al Barger asked for Bush's "real reasons" for invading Iraq. Winston Smith responded in Comment 36 with (among other reasons)
"[Reason] 1. Some people in the admin. had a strong antecdent [sic] non-WMD-related reasons for invading Iraq. E.g. Wolfy. Some of those reasons ARE moral ones, but some are strategic: they want a secure oil supply and to democratize the ME--in part perhaps for moral reasons, but, again, mostly for strategic ones. ..."
Al Barger responded in Comment 44 with:
"[L]acking the sting of anything sinister is your reason #1, describing strategic rather than "moral" arguments. For example, you list spreading democracy in the middle east as a secret strategic (and only co-incidentally moral) aim.
Besides not being at all SINISTER as a reason for war, this push for democracy is not SECRETIVE either. It was one of the half dozen main reasons routinely recited ... WMDs were a more compelling issue, but ... [s]etting up Iraq as a democratic model for the region was frequently mentioned as a major argument for the war."
While establishing democracy in Iraq was cited as an argument for the war, Paul Wolfowitz, denied that it was sufficient to justify the invasion:
"[T]here have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."
"The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it."
(From his Vanity Fair interview, transcript at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html)
Therefore, we see that:
A. The moral concern advanced by Reason 1 was considered to be insufficient cause for an invasion, and
B. The stated reasons for the invasion (WMD and support of terrorists) are not the strategic and geopolitical reasons set forth in Reason 1. That is, if Reason 1 was the sine qua non for the invasion, then the administration deceived us as to why we should support it.
So, if one accepts (as I do) that the root motives for the invasion were geopolitical and strategic, then we were deceived by our government into supporting an act of aggression under false pretenses. And *that* is not only sinister, but subverts both our core ideal of a Government by the People and our vision of America as a non-aggressor. The fact that some of the consequences of this sinister scheme happen to be desirable on moral grounds does not mitigate its evil.
60 - Al Barger
So then Jim, are you saying that Bush did NOT think that Saddam had WMDs? He knew better when he said so?
61 - Jim
First off, my apologies for the length of this. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write a shorter post.
In Comment 60 Al Barger asks: "Jim, are you saying that Bush did NOT think that Saddam had WMDs? He knew better when he said so?"
The context of my comment 59 was to answer Al's question of Comment 44, which was (I paraphrase, not quote) 'If the core reasons for the invasion were to achieve geopolitical and strategic goals, why is that sinister'
My answer is, 'It is sinister for a democratic government to mislead its public about why an act of aggression is required. If the true motive was to achieve strategic and geopolitical goals, then the government has an obligation to say so expressly. It is wrong (and I would say evil) to trot out instead a set of reasons that are tangential and ancillary to that core rational.'
Now Al raises a separate question (relating to the hypothetical above 'If the core reasons were ...'). To paraphrase again:
'Does Jim believe that the Bush administration was sincere in its pre-invasion claims that they knew for a fact that Saddam had WMD?'
No, I believe that there is sufficient cause to doubt that the Bush administration was sincere in their claims that they knew beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD.
(Note: My presumption is that our government is truthful, and the burden is on its critics to show that there is sufficient cause to doubt them. At that point, one can reasonable expect those doubts to be addressed and hard evidence brought forth to substantiate the administration's claims.)
Many different facts come together to reach this conclusion:
1) Before the invasion the people in the best position to know if Iraqi WMD existed (former and then-current UN Weapons Inspectors) denied that Iraq had WMDs on the scale claimed by Bush and his officials, based on their expertise and experience in Iraq.
2) Pre-Invasion there were many accounts of intelligence analysts stating that they were being pressured to alter their reports to strength claims that the WMD existed, even when such strengthening was not justified in their expert opinions.
3) We were unable to persuade most of our long-term allies (including Canada!) of the existence of WMDs in either the number or the state of readiness to justify invading a sovereign nation.
That is, the consensus of most of the rest of the free world (including many major world leaders with whom Bush could share classified information) appears to be that UN Weapons Inspectors would be sufficient to address the alleged Iraqi WMDs and weapons programs.
4)An invasion of Iraq for strategic and geopolitical aims was put forward during the 90's by (among others) the "Project for a New American Century types" mentioned by WS in Comment 36, and many of the key figures involved in that effort are now key players in the Bush administration and the invasion of Iraq.
This establishes a predisposition for the invasion, pending some justification to sell it to the public, leading us to:
5) There are credible accounts that consideration of the invasion of Iraq begin almost immediately after 9/11, with the intention of using the attacks of 9/11 as justification for the invasion.
To summarize my beliefs:
I believe that when, pre-invasion, Bush et al. claimed to know that Iraq had WMDs, they did not has the evidence to back it up. (They may have deluded themselves into believing in the WMDs. If so, they are incompetent, not evil, but the effect to the many thousands killed and many more thousands injured is the same.)
I believe that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq to achieve certain strategic and geopolitical goals.
I believe they felt that these geopolitical and strategic goals were both achievable and (in aggregate) in the nation's best interest and worth the myriad and unpredictable costs of the invasion.
I believe that the Bush team recognized that these geopolitical and strategic aims were insufficient, in the eyes of most Americans, to justify the invasion, and that team Bush intentionally overstated the existence and threat of WMDs to deceive the public into supporting an invasion that the public would not support for the true reasons.
I believe that by deceiving the public into supporting the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the Bush Administration has inflicted a harm upon our nation that far exceeds any possible benefit we can reasonably expect to derive from the invasion of Iraq.
And I note that by expending lives, equipment, money, good will, and American resolve on the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has sharply reduced America's ability to go after our real enemies, Al Qaeda, and those people and organizations who really support these murderous creatures.
62 - Roland
Jim
You are correct about my comment. I should have stated that "So long as Iraq is controlled by the US, then it will probably have no WMD reseach."
You make a compelling case for deception on the part of the Bush administration. unfortunately, I have forgotten a lot of the statements made in advance of the invasion. I do seem to recall that there were figures claiming that they knew the exact location of the WMD. This appears to be false, although I can't dismiss completely a find of a WMD cache.
I would tend to argue that it is possible for people to believe in the existence of things in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Given this fact, I find it hard to assert that Bush and his advisors lied about the WMD. Given what I know about this situation, I suspect that you are correct to state that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq and sought reasons to do this. This motivation makes one very suspicious.
63 - Jim
I certainly concur with Roland's statement in Comment 62 ("So long as Iraq is controlled by the US, then it will probably have no WMD research"). For the near- to mid-term we need not worry about Iraq developing WMD.
I note that the responses to the invasion of Iraq by other "axis-of-evil" and related nations are predictable. Those with WMD programs that were apparently nearing fruition (e.g., Iran, N. Korea) are rushing them to completion. Those whose programs to develop WMD are not so far along (e.g., Libya) are bargaining for the best deal they can get in return for dismantling their weapons programs. The former is (IMHO) a bad thing, while the latter is (IMHO) a good thing. On balance, I feel less safe, not more safe, though your mileage may vary.
Finally, maybe senior Bush officials really believed they knew that Saddam had WMD. If so, their talent for self-deception is hazardous to the well being of the United States, and we are all well served with them out of office. If, on the other hand, they did lie about their knowledge of Iraqi WMD, then their actions are hazardous to the well being of the United States, and we are all well served with them out of office. So, the question is, in some sense, moot.
(I realize that this last sounds, smug, snooty, and superior. As someone with his own talent for self-deception, I understand that it is an easy trap to fall in to. However, it is vital that our leaders be alert to this peril - that they actively seek out opposing views and carefully weigh the evidence for and against their cherished beliefs about the state of the world. It isn't easy, but no one said that being President is supposed to easy!)
64 - Al Barger
For one thing, you're starting out with an unreasonable demand that the administration needed to know "beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD."
You're treating it like a criminal law case, when it's a very different beast. It would not be acceptable to me or most Americans to expect that kind of standard. Well, this mass murdering thug enemy PROBABLY has a bunch of nasty stuff isn't good enough. We can't do anything on that basis. That's not good enough.
Again, you may argue a hundred different ways against the advisability of the Iraq effort, but no one here has even vaguely made a case that Bush has LIED- which is the main claim. Lying would involve saying something that you don't believe is true. Even the people using the word here, when they break it down are saying that Bush actually thought there were WMDs (as did almost everyone)- but still come up with ways of twisting it around to call him a "liar."
This doesn't make any sense.
65 - Jim
Al Barger states
"For one thing, you're starting out with an unreasonable demand that the administration needed to know "beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD.""
"You're treating it like a criminal law case, when it's a very different beast. It would not be acceptable to me or most Americans to expect that kind of standard."
For criminal cases, we set the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" because we consider it to be a grave injustice when our government, acting on our behalf, imprisons an innocent person. We subject death sentences to greater scrutiny because it would be a greater injustice for our government to kill, on our behalf, an innocent person. In invading Iraq on our behalf our government order our brothers and sisters in arms to commit acts that killed some 3,750+ innocent Iraqi civilians, and it sent 461 of our brothers and sisters in arms to their deaths. (This, of course, ignores the 9,000+ Iraqi troops we killed).
In other words, by invading Iraq, we killed more innocent civilians than Al Qaeda killed on 9/11/01.
It is not acceptable to me or to most Americans for our nation to set off upon such destruction without (at the least) evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this mass killing and destruction is necessary. George Bush asserted that he had such evidence when he did not. Most Americans believed him. Had we been told the truth before the invasion, it is likely that Bush would not have gotten the public support he needed.
Al continues:
"Well, this mass murdering thug enemy PROBABLY has a bunch of nasty stuff isn't good enough. We can't do anything on that basis. That's not good enough."
Al seems to think the choices were to invade or do nothing. This is not necessarily so. If the goal of Bush, et al., was to stop Iraqi WMD, then they had the chance pre-invasion when there was strong international support for expanding and strengthening the UN inspectors in Iraq. Along with that strengthening was a commitment that if Iraq did not cooperate then the UN would use military force to impose the inspections and dismantling of any WMDs (or WMD infrastructure) discovered. (Having typed this, I realize that it is further evidence that team Bush was lying about Iraqi WMD. If stopping Iraqi WMD was their true concern, they would have embraced this opportunity.)
Al may be correct, for if the true goal of the Bush administration was to invade Iraq for geopolitical and strategic reasons (see comments 36, 33, and 59), then only an invasion would do. If this is the case, then they lied to us about WMD. (For more on Bush and his lying, see, e.g., my statements in Comment 61.)
***Sources***
Allied fatalities and wounded http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
Iraqi fatality figures http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html
66 - Rep. Mark B. Cohen
The test is not how emotionally involved one becomes with any piece of news. The test is what constructive action one takes about any news item or series of news items. If people inside and outside government can figure out how Saddam's capture can improve the lives of Iraqis, and secure the safety of our soldiers, that will be great. If it leads merely to more battles over a longer period of time, it will be a sad case of opportunities missed.
67 - Eric Olsen
Thanks for stopping by and leaving your thoughts, Rep. Cohen. Since you have a blog, we would be very happy to have you as a member of Blogcritics!
68 - Dixie
I have been using the term "misdirection" rather than "lie" for the administration's pre-Iraq statements because I, like so many, think primarily that a lie is a statement completely contrary to fact and known by the speaker as completely contrary to fact. After seeing the debate here, I am unable to pass it off with a term that connotes an entertainment skill for a magician or a well-conceived football play in which the quarterback pumps but then tucks the ball against his hip. It IS a lie to present something as fact when you don't know for sure.
"Quick! Out the window!"
Your spouse, dressed in a robe, greets you breathlessly at the door when you come home unexpectedly from work. The bedroom door is closed, and your spouse steers you in the opposite direction. "Is there someone in the bedroom?" you ask suspiciously. "Of course not, darling!" is the answer you get. You open the door. The room is empty.
No lie, huh?
69 - Jim
Dixie (in Comment 68) brings up an important point. In some contexts we expect people to lie and mislead us. One of her examples is a quarterback's fake - it's a lie, but it's OK, as the defense knows he may be deceiving them about who has the ball (and has similar tricks of its own).
When President Bush explained to the American people why it was necessary to invade another nation, he asked us to put over 100,000 of our sons and daughters into harm's way, set them off to kill thousands of civilians (unintentionally) and over ten thousands of Iraqi soldiers (intentionally), and commit our nation to a prolonged occupation. We had the reasonable expectation that the President and his senior officials were being utterly candid and straightforward in their statements to us, with no hidden agenda. It is now clear that we were wrong.
[FWIW, I find Dixie's second example priceless! Unless she objects, I will use it to make the same point in conversations elsewhere.]
70 - Dixie
Since it's priceless, I give it freely. Thanks, Jim.